Back
L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Akkammagari Bheemamma – Appellant
Versus
Akkammagari Balamma – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
A suit for partition and a suit for exercising the right of preemption are fundamentally different and independent legal actions. The right of preemption does not apply within a partition suit [judgement_subject] (!) .
The application for exercising the right of preemption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act is a substantive right that must be worked out separately from a suit for partition. The parameters for adjudicating these two types of suits are entirely different (!) .
The period of limitation for enforcing the right of preemption is one year, starting from the date of possession or delivery of possession, which is generally the date of sale. The residuary limitation period does not apply when a specific limitation period is provided under the law (!) (!) .
The petitioner’s attempt to invoke the residuary provision of the Limitation Act (Article 137) was rejected because there is a specific limitation period applicable to the enforcement of the right of preemption (!) .
The Court found no legal or factual error in the trial court's detailed examination of the matter, leading to the dismissal of the criminal revision petition (!) (!) .
The relationship between the petitioner and respondents was not disputed, and the sale of the property was executed through a sale deed, with the petitioner seeking to exercise her preemptive right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the substantive right conferred under Section 22 is separate and cannot be exercised or adjudicated within a partition suit, which has different legal parameters (!) .
Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs (!) .
These points encapsulate the core legal principles and the Court’s reasoning as reflected in the document.
The petitioner filed OS No. 31 of 1977 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, against her mother—the 1st respondent, and 15 others, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Eleven years thereafter, she filed I.A. No. 606 of 1988 under sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), with a prayer to enable her to exercise the right of preemption, in respect of an item of property sold by the 1st respondent in favour of respondent No.16. It was alleged that the 1st respondent executed a sale deed, dated 21.1.1985, in favour of respondent No.16, alienating an item of property, detrimental to the interests of the petitioner. The application was opposed by respondents 1 and 16. Through its order, dated 14.9.1999, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P.
2. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
3. The record discloses that while admitting the C.R.P., this Court did not grant any interim order. In all likelihood, the suit may have been disposed of long back. Learned counsel for
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
